Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves (Update)

October 3, 2017
BREAKING: The Nobel Physics Prize is awarded to 3 scientists for discoveries in gravitational waves.

Three U.S.-based scientists won the Nobel Physics Prize on Tuesday for detecting faint ripples flying through the universe—the gravitational waves predicted a century ago by Albert Einstein that provide a new understanding of the universe.

Rainer Weiss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Barry Barish and Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology won the 2017 prize for a combination of highly advanced theory and ingenious equipment design, Sweden's Royal Academy of Sciences announced.

The scientists were key to the first observation of gravitational waves in September 2015. When the discovery was announced several months later, it was a sensation not only among scientists but the general public.

"It's a win for the human race as a whole. These gravitational waves will be powerful ways for the human race to explore the universe," said Thorne, speaking by phone with The Associated Press from California.

"I view this more as a thing that recognizes the work of a thousand people," Weiss told reporters at the announcement news conference.

The prize is "a win for Einstein, and a very big one," Barish told the AP.

The German-born Weiss was awarded half of the 9-million-kronor ($1.1 million) prize amount and Thorne and Barish will split the other half.

Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
In this Feb. 11, 2016 file photo, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Co-Founder Rainer Weiss, left, and Kip Thorne, right, hug on stage accompanied by Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Exectutive Director David Reitze, bottom, during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, USA. The Nobel Physics Prize 2017 is announced Monday Oct. 3, 2017, is awarded to three scientists Rainer Weiss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Barry Barish and Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Gravitational waves are extremely faint ripples in the fabric of space and time, generated by some of the most violent events in the universe. The waves detected by the laureates came from the collision of two black holes some 1.3 billion light-years away. A light-year is about 5.88 trillion miles.

Ariel Goobar of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the winners' work meant "we can study processes which were completely impossible, out of reach to us in the past."

"The best comparison is when Galileo discovered the telescope, which allowed us to see that Jupiter had moons. And all of a sudden, we discovered that the universe was much vaster than we used to think about," Goobar said.

With the technology that the three developed "we may even see entirely new objects that we haven't even imagined yet," said Patrick Sutton, an astronomer at Cardiff University in Wales.

The waves were predicted by Einstein a century ago as part of his theory of general relativity. General relativity says that gravity is caused by heavy objects bending space-time, which itself is the four-dimensional way that astronomers see the universe.

Weiss in the 1970s designed a laser-based device that would detect gravitational waves. He, Thorne and Barish "ensured that four decades of effort led to gravitational waves finally being observed," the Nobel announcement said.

The laser device, called an interferometer, must be both exquisitely precise and extremely stable. "The beam must hit the mirrors precisely. They should hardly shake at all, not even when leaves fall from nearby trees," according to a Nobel background paper.

The first detection of gravity waves involved two of the devices about 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles) apart—in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana. The wave first passed the Livingston facility and 7 milliseconds later at Hanford, consistent with the speed of light.

The announcement said Einstein was convinced that gravitational waves could never be measured. The laureates used laser devices "to measure a change thousands of times smaller than an atomic nucleus."

In a moment of poetry aimed at making the distant and infinitesimal phenomenon understandable to non-experts, the academy announcement said gravitational waves "are always created when a mass accelerates, like when an ice-skater pirouettes or a pair of black holes rotate around each other."

How to catch a gravitational wave. The world’s first captured gravitational waves were created in a violent collision between two black holes, 1.3 billion lightyears away. When these waves passed the Earth, 1.3 billion years later, they had weakened considerably: the disturbance in spacetime that LIGO measured was thousands of times smaller than an atomic nucleus. Credit: LIGO

Professor Alberto Vecchio, from the University of Birmingham's Institute of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, said this discovery will produce results for decades to come.

"They have taken me, as well as hundreds of my colleagues, through such an intellectually rewarding and recently adrenaline-packed journey that we could not have even remotely imagined," he said. "The best part is that this is just the beginning of a new roller-coaster exploration of the universe."

For the past 25 years, the Nobel physics prize has been shared among multiple winners.

Last year's prize went to three British-born researchers who applied the mathematical discipline of topology to help understand the workings of exotic matter such as superconductors and superfluids.

The 2017 Nobel prizes kicked off Monday with the medicine prize being awarded to three Americans studying circadian rhythms—better known as body clocks: Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young.

Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
The 2017 Nobel Prize winners in Physics, seen on a projection and are from left, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barrish and Kip S. Thorne, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017. (Jessica Gow /TT via AP)

The chemistry prize will be announced Wednesday, the Nobel literature prize on Thursday and the peace prize on Friday. The economics prize, which is not technically a Nobel, will be awarded on Monday.

***

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2017

Gravitational waves finally captured

On 14 September 2015, the universe's gravitational waves were observed for the very first time. The waves, which were predicted by Albert Einstein a hundred years ago, came from a collision between two black holes. It took 1.3 billion years for the waves to arrive at the LIGO detector in the USA.

Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
Goran K Hansson, centre, Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, announces the 2017 Nobel Prize winners in Physics, from top left, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barrish and Kip S. Thorne Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. (Jessica Gow /TT via AP)

The signal was extremely weak when it reached Earth, but is already promising a revolution in astrophysics. Gravitational waves are an entirely new way of observing the most in space and testing the limits of our knowledge.

LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, is a collaborative project with over one thousand researchers from more than twenty countries. Together, they have realised a vision that is almost fifty years old. The 2017 Nobel Laureates have, with their enthusiasm and determination, each been invaluable to the success of LIGO. Pioneers Rainer Weiss and Kip S. Thorne, together with Barry C. Barish, the scientist and leader who brought the project to completion, ensured that four decades of effort led to finally being observed.

In the mid-1970s, Rainer Weiss had already analysed possible sources of that would disturb measurements, and had also designed a detector, a laser-based interferometer, which would overcome this noise. Early on, both Kip Thorne and Rainer Weiss were firmly convinced that could be detected and bring about a revolution in our knowledge of the universe.

Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
In this file photo dated Friday, April 17, 2015, a national library employee shows the gold Nobel Prize medal awarded to the late novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, in Bogota, Colombia. The Nobel prize has greater personal impact than merely receiving the monetary award, as it marks the recipient in terms of esteem and global recognition. (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara, FILE)

Gravitational waves spread at the speed of light, filling the universe, as Albert Einstein described in his general theory of relativity. They are always created when a mass accelerates, like when an ice-skater pirouettes or a pair of rotate around each other. Einstein was convinced it would never be possible to measure them. The LIGO project's achievement was using a pair of gigantic laser interferometers to measure a change thousands of times smaller than an , as the gravitational wave passed the Earth.

So far all sorts of electromagnetic radiation and particles, such as cosmic rays or neutrinos, have been used to explore the universe. However, are direct testimony to disruptions in spacetime itself. This is something completely new and different, opening up unseen worlds. A wealth of discoveries awaits those who succeed in capturing the waves and interpreting their message.

Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
In this file photo dated Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Co-Founder Rainer Weiss speaks during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, as it is announced that scientists have finally detected gravitational waves. The Nobel Physics Prize 2017 is announced Monday Oct. 3, 2017, awarded jointly to three scientists Rainer Weiss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Barry Barish and Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, FILE)
Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
In this file photo dated Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Co-Founder Rainer Weiss speaks during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, as it is announced that scientists have finally detected gravitational waves. The Nobel Physics Prize 2017 is announced Monday Oct. 3, 2017, awarded jointly to three scientists Rainer Weiss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Barry Barish and Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, FILE)
Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, announces the 2017 Nobel Prize winners in Physics, seen on a projection are from left, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barrish and Kip S. Thorne at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017. (Jessica Gow /TT via AP)
Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
Goran K Hansson, centre, Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, announces the 2017 Nobel Prize winners in Physics, from top left, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barrish and Kip S. Thorne Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. (Jessica Gow /TT via AP)
Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
In this file photo dated Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016, Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Co-Founder Kip Thorne speaks during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, USA, to announce that scientists have finally detected gravitational waves. The Nobel Physics Prize 2017 is announced Monday Oct. 3, 2017, awarded to 3 scientists including Kip Thorne, for discoveries in gravitational waves. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, FILE)
Nobel physics prize awards discovery in gravitational waves
Goran K Hansson, centre, Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, announces the 2017 Nobel Prize winners in Physics, from top left, Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barrish and Kip S. Thorne Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. (Jessica Gow /TT via AP)

Explore further: Nobel physics prize: A big award often for tiny materials

More information: www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize … sics/laureates/2017/

Scientific Background

Popular Science Background

Related Stories

Nobel chemistry prize to be announced in Stockholm

October 10, 2012

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences will announce the winners of the 2012 Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday, capping this year's science awards before the Nobel spotlight moves to literature and peace.

Recommended for you

Reducing the impact forces of water entry

November 20, 2018

When professional divers jump from a springboard, their hands are perpendicular to the water, with wrists pointed upward, as they continue toward their plunge at 30 mph.

Tiny lasers light up immune cells

November 20, 2018

A team of researchers from the School of Physics at the University of St Andrews have developed tiny lasers that could revolutionise our understanding and treatment of many diseases, including cancer.

208 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2017
They have been awarding the Nobel for discoveries in pseudoscience for decades, why stop now. This must be the cherry on pseudoscientific pie.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2017
Using equations established from other observations (EM equations -> observer independent speed c -> Lorentz boosts -> Acceleration and gravitational equivalence -> Energy/Curvature relationship), scientists were able to make a specific quantitative prediction of a future experiment. When they ran that experiment, the results matched that prediction. It's actually quite the remarkable feat of science to be able to use what simple tools and observations we have access to and use them to not just describe objects we haven't yet observed directly, but to predict what we could yet observe in the future from the behaviour of those objects.

This is up there with the Higgs boson in terms of astounding feats of real physics work. It's a shame that the Nobel can't go to the true collaborations of hundreds of people contributing to the work. Science doesn't really have 'lone geniuses' like it might have in the past. It's a lot of people contributing in different ways to these accomplishments.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2017
Congratulations, particularly to Kip Thorne, one of my favorite physicists. Well deserved by the winners, after long hard work over decades.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2017
Really-Skippy is going to be really mad about this. He was hoping the Volumetrification/Energy-Space Earthman was going to win it.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2017
They have been awarding the Nobel for discoveries in pseudoscience for decades, why stop now. This must be the cherry on pseudoscientific pie.

Awww, CD....
Is your head gonna esplode, now...?
These guys worked for DECADES on this... Do you suppose that was because THEY (along with a number of other people) thought it was "pseudo-science"...?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrwillsj
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2017
I certainly lack the competence to either affirm or dispute the research that earned these scientists their award.

Their efforts based on a century of innovative thinking and empirical experiments that have resulted in a multitude of inventions and evolving technology.

cd8 and C_R, please to name one, just one actual device in production, i.e. physical existence (orgone box doesn't count) that is in contradiction of the Einstein Relativism or the Quantum Mechanics based sciences?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2017
@ Chris-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

As always, the science apologists of physorg find themselves in the situation of downvoting critiques which they themselves have likely never seen before about claims which they insist must be true.
Why you think they should apologize for the down karma votes? The nice peoples at physorg give everybody a vote and they don't require anybody to apologize for them.

Maybe they give you the bad karma votes because you post up a whole book instead of just writing him and sending him off to Amazon like all the other crankpots do. This is the physorg comment sections, it is not a place for pretend scientists to try out their book writing talents.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
It's just another obfuscation tactic used by Uncle Pedo, pay no mind to him.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2017
It's just another obfuscation tactic used by Uncle Pedo, pay no mind to him.

Oh, man... You sure told him...
What with that truly original and cogent name call and all...
Sorry cd (not really), but I found that remark senseless and just plain - stupid.
And stupid remarks like that are a reflection of your credibility...
Ergo, earns downvotes...
maybe you should consider some work on your social skills before you attempt science...
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2017
It's just another obfuscation tactic used by Uncle Pedo, pay no mind to him.

Oh, man... You sure told him..


I only get to see his stuffs when somebody else puts him the quotes. So he does not get to sure told me very often.
Solon
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2017
Congratulations to these outstanding individuals who have joined the likes of Penzias, Wilson, Mather, Smoot, Perimutter, Schmidt, Riess in what should be a gallery of shame. Pure fraud.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 03, 2017
Can't wait for the fallout coming down the pike a few years from now.

When it's discovered that the only thing that was measured was a change in ambient spectral & gravitational intensity that created an upward spike above background noise levels, it'll be a real hoot to watch the finger pointing & name calling for mis-interpretation of the data.

There was a very good reason Einstein said Gravity Waves could never be detected, the reason being that real waves, like Electro-magnetic waves, have a variable frequency which is what makes them detectable.

If gravity exists as a true WAVE, it too must exist in variable frequencies as does the EM Spectrum. But is this what LIGO measured? No, LIGO measured changes from ambient background levels of noise, no different than if you were adjusting a variable switch to increase or decrease light controlling a light source.

Einstein knew GRAVITY did not exist as a variable wave, that's why he said it would never be detected.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Really-Skippy is going to be really mad about this. He was hoping the Volumetrification/Energy-Space Earthman was going to win it.
I trust you/yours are well since we 'spoke' last, Ira.

Re your concern for my 'feelings' re above 'news', it is the inevitable (recall Bicep2) reputation/embarrassment of all those involved in this on-going silliness masquerading as 'science' that I am feeling badly for.

In case you aren't aware of the obvious reasons why it is silly, not science:

- if they claim their abstract 'spacetime' is 'real', then they tacitly confirming that the old "Luminiferous Aether" was ALSO 'real'.

- just as in Bicep2 case, the models/assumptions, analytical techniques, 'artifacts' etc are questionable; and I explained SOME of the reasons why in my reply to @SteveS in: https://phys.org/...ole.html

- claims have no external confirmation from OTHER TYPES of 'experiments'.

- etc.

Cheers, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing great, thanks for asking.

@Uncle Ira.
Ira-Skippy's Blah goes here.
I trust you/yours are well since we 'spoke' last, Ira.


Yeah Cher, we are doing real good. Since I last run into you I spend a week of my vacation time helping out the peoples in Houston when the Harvey hit them hard. Me and some of my neighbors us loaded up the trucks with the trailer and boats to help them get their feets back on the high ground. Why it is that the Texans never seem to have enough pirogues, eh? After as many times as we show them how to deal with the high water you would think they would invest in a cheap flat-bottom boat. Texans on the coast don't seem to be much smarter than the Texans deep in the heart of Texas. (I'm just kidding around, they needed some help and I was happy I could do something for them.) That was last month. Since then I have not been doing much except for my work and playing around with my radios.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
@Ira, thanks for showing up to help victims. I always knew that you were the kind of person who does stuff like this. Keep being the way you are. It's good to see bayou pirogues save the Texans who deride them. I bet there's a lot of Texans who have more respect for the bayou than they did before.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Yeah Cher, we are doing real good. Since I last run into you I spend a week of my vacation time helping out the peoples in Houston when the Harvey hit them hard. Me and some of my neighbors us loaded up the trucks with the trailer and boats to help them get their feets back on the high ground. Why it is that the Texans never seem to have enough pirogues, eh? After as many times as we show them how to deal with the high water you would think they would invest in a cheap flat-bottom boat. Texans on the coast don't seem to be much smarter than the Texans deep in the heart of Texas
Yes; I was noticing the absence of your posts, and suspected as much; well done that man! :)

I too (great minds think alike they say!) have long pondered why simple/cheap floatation/carrying 'boat' and minimal rescue ropes/gear etc is not made mandatory for obtaining/getting insurance/emergency support in such 'known' extreme places/events. As you say, go figure!

Be well. :)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2017
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses.

Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.
DS, it was that sort of uncritical emotional/enthusiasm/belief in the inerrancy of individuals/maths, rather than objectively, dispassionately scrutinizing/discussing the method/claims themselves, that got so much 'egg on faces' here in the Bicep2 fiasco; during which time some attacked/ridiculed etc just because others actually applied the scientific method and not the 'personality cult' method. Instead of expending your energy on making vague emotional/unwarranted attacks on critics, why not actually argue the science cases to support the science claims in question, DS? Forget the personal anger/feuds, just concentrate on the objective science scrutiny/discourse demanded by the scientific method at all stages. :)
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
Show a Nobel Prize that has been proven wrong. Or STFU.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2017
I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize proven wrong. Let's limit it to the Nobel Prize in Physics since your politics won't let you admit the truth about the other prizes.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2017
(cont'd)

"... I repeat that I am no psychologist, and it is with diffidence that I admit an unwillingness to conclude that this is an inescapable psychological necessity; it is more comforting to hope that it denotes a failure of our educational system to recognise an ever-present danger and to take precautions against it. It is usually taken for granted that the processes of mathematics are identical with the processes of reasoning, whereas they are quite different. The mathematician is more akin to a spider than to a civil engineer, to a chess player than to one endowed with exceptional critical power. The faculty by which a chess expert intuitively sees the possibilities that lie in a particular configuration of pieces on the board is paralleled by that which shows the mathematician the much more general possibilities latent in an array of symbols ..."

(cont'd)

Wow, Chris. You sure must read a lot, given all that you quote...
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2017
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses.

Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.


Well, yay for the Density Dude to show up & give lectures about crankitis.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
Can't wait for the fallout coming down the pike a few years from now.
...
There was a very good reason Einstein said Gravity Waves could never be detected, the reason being that real waves, like Electro-magnetic waves, have a variable frequency which is what makes them detectable.

Think of it as a "compression" wave in spacetime. Depending on the bodies colliding it DOES express variability in the variance of the wave form they see. That's what allows them to determine the size of the bodies converging and resulting energy release.

If gravity exists as a true WAVE, it too must exist in variable frequencies as does the EM Spectrum
...
Einstein knew GRAVITY did not exist as a variable wave, that's why he said it would never be detected.

It doesn't EXIST as a wave. It just EXPRESSES itself that way (within spacetime).
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2017
I'm still waiting for the list of Nobel Prizes in Physics that turned out wrong. i'M SEEING ZERO. Bring it zeroes.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2017
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/sapere-2.htm

G. Walton, Winchester, U.K
...
The real reason why they merit attention is that they are early instances of 'mathemagics', namely the increasing reliance of modern physics on so-called counter-intuitive mathematical operations."

I guess it all depends on WHO is doing the "intuiting"...
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.

Thanks for the timely quotes/reminders that mathematics is an abstractions tool OF science, NOT the physical science itself.

You also remind me of what Einstein himself said (which I shall always remember for its honest appraisal of the 'mathematics as a tool' he himself was using to describe his abstract 'spacetime' observational/descriptive/predictive 'analytical construct'):

- "Insofar as mathematics is true, it does not describe the real world. Insofar as it describes the real world, it is not true."---Einstein.

- "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I don't understand it myself anymore"---Einstein.

You also reminded me that (way back when!) my mathematics teachers employed 'best guess tests" for students to always strive to apply when working out a problem; so as to save time/error; since the test will let you judge whether the 'result' of your equation/workings would be anywhere near a 'real' result OR just 'gigo'. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.

Thanks for the timely quotes/reminders that mathematics is an abstractions tool OF science, NOT the physical science itself.

No, it is just a tool. A "Users Guide"
- "Insofar as mathematics is true, it does not describe the real world. Insofar as it describes the real world, it is not true."---Einstein.

actually it was - "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality." Nice try, tho...
- "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I don't understand it myself anymore"---Einstein.

He also said - How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2017
Still waiting for that list of Nobel Prizes in Physics that turned out to be wrong. Still not seeing it.
NoStrings
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2017
cantdrive85, that is correct. Most likely they haven't. Undoubtedly, the gravitational waves exist, whether they are gravitons or particlelless distortion in fabric of space / time however that may be presenting itself.

The point is, even if the equipment perchance may be proven not remotely sensitive enough, they will not be asked for the refund of the Nobel money.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 04, 2017
Some lolworthy stuff on here. CD & Reeve, believers in Velikovskian woo (you know - Venus shot out of Jupiter, and did handbrake turns around the solar system, etc) scoffing at real scientists, who have won the Nobel Prize! Couldn't make this stuff up! Messrs Dunning & Kruger could find years worth of further work on here.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2017
I'm still waiting for the list of Nobel Prizes in Physics that turned out wrong. i'M SEEING ZERO. Bring it zeroes.


Still waiting for that list of Nobel Prizes in Physics that turned out to be wrong. Still not seeing it.


Uh, oh, it's the Perpetual Motion Density Dude again, still at it.
sedumjoy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2017
Even if they didn't find anything...they should still get a Nobel Prize ...or at least who ever designed and built the interferometer. I wonder if you could make an atomic clock sensitive enough to measure a wiggle in time instead of a wiggle in space. It would sure have a smaller footprint. Probably you could stick one on kitchen table and do the experiment from almost anywhere.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock said
Take for example the case of anti-gravity. There is a 2015 UFO documentary out which documents very specific plans for a US-government-created flying saucer. You will of course have no difficulty rejecting the video's validity without ever seeing it, but I do want you to know that the technology which is described in great detail in this video plainly involves the creation of a DOUBLE LAYER using extreme voltages that manipulate gravity as a DIPOLAR alignment of electron sub-particles. And it does so with COUNTER-ROTATING FILAMENTS...

The counter-rotating filaments ...

https://youtu.be/...E?t=3928

The obscure reference to a dipolar force ...

https://youtu.be/...E?t=2669
because everyone knows that eu pseudoscience supposition based upon interpretations of youtube video's trumps experimentation...

especially if it's anything from modern physics and validated

gotcha!
gish-gallop repeatedly regurgitated
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock said
somebody here would misinterpret the very limited point being made with that comment
no, i didn't misinterpret what point you were making

you make those same points all over the interwebz

you even have a pseudoscience blog failure that you can't get attention with which is why you're seeking attention here from science literates

but most importantly: your point is irrelevant

who cares?

you made the claim that
You're not going to find the answer by searching through the speeches of the Nobel Prize winners
you know why?

because they're acceptance speeches, you idiot!

not even a "historian" or "researcher" would make that ASSumption...

i mean... really!

EPIC fail

learn to science or STFU
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock said
Here's another problematic Nobel Prize:
so... lets get this straight here...

you've posted here 32 times because:
you can't actually do science
and you can't produce evidence for your beliefs
no one will "recognize" your brand of pseudoscience (because it's not science)
you think all acceptance speeches should contain every historical person who ever worked in a field that lead to the discovery (irrational and stupid)

therefore you will bury any legitimate science with your bullsh*t gish gallop?

is that about it?

all this because you're an idiot?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock cont'd
While I am talking about science, you are incessantly talking about ME
wrong again

1- you don't talk about science, otherwise you would accept the validated science that disproved your eu cult BS

2- i don't talk about you - i demonstrate the logical fail you make then show why critical thinking is required so that others don't fall into the stupidity of a cult like you did

3- just because you can post thousands of times a day with copy/pasted stupidity doesn't mean you're doing anything important. it just shows you don't have a job or the capacity to comprehend anything more than your cult dogma
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrwillsj
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2017
As for me? Thanks for asking. I'm still waiting for any of you to produce in actual "I can touch it!" device that actually works as you claim, when I touch it.

Sorry no, hollybollyhonglywood special effects don't count.

All I'm seeing is excuses for the failure of pseudo-scientists to produce any new technology such as computers or lasers or nuclear bombs. Bloviated fantastical delusions ain't cutting it.

Let me guess? The "Men In Black' have you locked up in a cozy 'rest home'. Physically preventing you from building that anti-grav flying saucer with which you could amaze all your friends and neighbors.

The incompetency of the anti-Einstein crackpots, conflating ignorant scripture with physical results!

I claim that you are Martians. Posted on the Internet it must be true. Nope dope, I do not have to physically prove your Martianism. Since the basis of your anti-Einstein tantrums are based entirely upon He Said, She Said writings. But no inventions.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock
History, philosophy and all of the various patterns which play out in scientific debates present crucial context blah blah bullsh*t blah
1- you're an idiot: context is taught in science (it's the foundation courses)

2- focusing completely on context doesn't explain any of the factual evidence based science that is building the world. it only confuses people with irrelevant data just because you're pissed at being suckered into a cult

3- as rrwillsj puts it: I'm still waiting for any of you to produce in actual "I can touch it!" device that actually works as you claim, when I touch it

to put that into context for you: science is based upon fact and what can be reproduced. it built the computer, studies, maths and everything else you rely upon to spread your cult

focusing on context instead of the science fact is like focusing on a single fish in your current ravine during a catastrophic dam release 200 ft away
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2017
@Whyde.
that mathematics is an abstractions tool OF science, NOT the physical science itself.
No, it is just a tool. A "Users Guide"
Isn't that effectively what I said/implied? :)
actually it was - "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Nice try, tho...
My recall 'distilled' the salient point Mr E was making. Thanks for posting the verbatim quote from Mr E. :)
- "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I don't understand it myself anymore"---Einstein.
He also said - How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?
In much the same way that ANY form of Logics System, be it mathematical or conceptual/observational etc, can, IN SOME CASES, also be "so admirably ADAPTED to the objects of reality"; but in SOME OTHER cases, NOT. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2017
@Whyde.
that mathematics is an abstractions tool OF science, NOT the physical science itself.

No, it is just a tool. A "Users Guide"

Isn't that effectively what I said/implied? :)

Your use of Abstractions appears to imply - inconsequential...
actually it was - "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Nice try, tho...
My recall 'distilled' the salient point Mr E was making. Thanks for posting the verbatim quote from Mr E. :)

And you subtly changed the context with your - distillation...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2017
"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I don't understand it myself anymore"---Einstein.
He also said - How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?
In much the same way that ANY form of Logics System, be it mathematical or conceptual/observational etc,

Math being the most precise and Universally applicable of any variety of "Logics System"s...
can, IN SOME CASES, also be "so admirably ADAPTED to the objects of reality";

with far fewer instances and WAY less applicability.
but in SOME OTHER cases, NOT.

A LOT of other cases, you mean...
A much higher incidence of this due to specific constraints required by that "Logic's System"...
Sorry, but math is still the way to go...

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2017
@Whyde.
that mathematics is an abstractions tool OF science, NOT the physical science itself.
No, it is just a tool. A "Users Guide"
Isn't that effectively what I said/implied?
Your use of Abstractions appears to imply - inconsequential
Actually, that's your own 'inference', mate, not my implication.
My recall 'distilled' the salient point Mr E was making. Thanks for posting the verbatim quote from Mr E.
And you subtly changed the context with your - distillation
My apologies if so. The point was to highlight that abstract maths logics-constructs based on UNREALITY axioms may NOT always produce 'results' which accord with reality.

Your follow-on post was more about semantics than reality implications/issues pointed out via frequent reminders/cautions; and by Einstein's himself. I will address this from your follow-on post though:
Sorry, but math is still the way to go..
Sure; but with prudent reality-checks along the way, hey?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2017
Sorry, but math is still the way to go...
...........sure, without Perpetual Motion "math" models, the perpetual motion mechanics living here wouldn't have an argument for existence of infinite gravity & infinite density on the surface of a finite stellar mass.

Schwarzschild's black hole math is an entertaining illusion with no foundation within the Fundamental Laws of Physics, which is why you cling to it.
rrrander
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2017
American my be filled with the scum of the Earth, but they also produce the bulk of the world's great minds.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
@chris/hannes the eu cult acolyte multi-sock said
Context is very different from content
too bad you don't actually know the definition of either word...

point being: it is irrelevant whether the catholic church historically burned people at the stake for being heretics because in today's society it is a distant memory that doesn't happen

so when you argue that [x] person was vilified in history for being wrong but was later found to be correct, you're also talking mostly ancient history

if you want to stay current, especially in today's society of instant information, you need to make your point relevant to the time as well as subject

you do neither, as demonstrated by your 41 posts in this thread alone with absolutely no relevant argument other than you being pissed at scientists ignoring your cult

learn the scientific method before attempting to discredit it
then learn at least the basics

knowing some history doesn't invalidate validated science
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
so when you argue that [x] person was vilified in history for being wrong but was later found to be correct, you're also talking mostly ancient history
important note about this

in the scientific method there is a way to invalidate the findings of another scientist
it is also part and parcel of the method of peer review as well as scientific testing and validation

this is why science is more powerful than religion, or just conjecture, like your eu cult

if you think the science is wrong, the only way you can argue the point is with the evidence that invalidates the science

argument from history only makes you look like a complete idiot seeking attention because you're too f*cking stupid to comprehend the basics

more to the point: until you actually make an argument from evidence and science to invalidate the science, you will always be the fraudulent pseudoscience crank from a cult

period

full stop
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
Sorry, but math is still the way to go...
...........sure, without Perpetual Motion "math" models, the perpetual motion mechanics living here wouldn't have an argument for existence of infinite gravity & infinite density on the surface of a finite stellar mass.

As I've said before, no one thinks there is "infinite" anything on the surface of a stellar mass. Just that the body has reached maximum density of the mass contributed.
Schwarzschild's black hole math is an entertaining illusion with no foundation within the Fundamental Laws of Physics, which is why you cling to it.

Who says I cling to it? It's a useful tool, guiding to a particular point of - maximum density. (ergo, maximum gravity for the body). After that point, it is no longer useful.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017

Who says I cling to it? It's a useful tool, guiding to a particular point of - maximum density. (ergo, maximum gravity for the body). After that point, it is no longer useful.


What? Tell me then you don't believe in this:

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2017
Benni: If you care about accuracy to any degree (you haven't ever seemed to demonstrate such an interest, but...), most physicists suspect that the classical equations of GR probably are not accurate within some very small region around the center of a black hole. Physics is a quest to find the most accurate approximation of the truth, and GR is an accurate approximation of a lot of things. We simply don't have enough information to guide what the next-most-accurate physical description may be that will better describe what happens at the centers of black holes or other approaching-infinite-energy-density physical scenarios.

It's not a matter of "believing in" infinite density. It's just a matter of not knowing how to do the maths in such a case. And we need more data to help us understand those maths. But don't for one moment think that just because our approximation may not hold in this one extreme case, it isn't relevant in more general cases.
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2017
To draw a relevant parallel by what I mean by 'approximation': Newtonian physics (Gallilean velocity addition, 'fixed stage' of space and universal 'clock' of time) and Newtonian gravitation (F=GMm/r²) are useful approximations for nearly everything we do on Earth. They get the predictions of experimental results close enough to measured values to be useful.

However, when gravity is particularly strong, when speeds are particularly fast, and so on, the predictions of Newtonian physics don't match measured results closely. SR and GR provide better predictions of measurements in these cases, without serious exception. SR and GR *also* reproduce Newtonian physics results when you calculate them in weaker gravity and/or slower speeds. This is how physics progresses. New theories (frameworks) that reproduce old results in one limit, and explain other results in new limits.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
I gotta interrupt this kludge of furballs for an important announcement...

Ahem. The Catholic Church never executed anyone for heresy or witchcraft.

Yes, there were deaths of victims of torture for names of co-conspirators. However, those involved were sometimes punished by the catholic hierarchy. The authorized intent, after information. Was to convince the victim to repent for their sinful deeds.

Then they were turned over to State Authorities to be executed for treason. Heresy against god is treason against god's anointed sovereigns, Kings had no sympathy for rebellious subjects.

In turn, during the formation of protestant monarchies and republics, it turned out they had even less sympathy for dissent and freethought.

If I remember correctly, the last two official executions for witchcraft (i.e. herbalist or midwife) were in a protestant canton of Switzerland and Protestant Scotland. And again, they were tortured for heresy and executed for treason.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
On 20 January 1600, Pope Clement VIII declared Bruno a heretic and the Inquisition issued a sentence of death.


https://en.wikipe...0.931600
Chris_Reeve
Oct 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
I gotta interrupt this kludge of furballs for an important announcement...

Ahem. The Catholic Church never executed anyone for heresy or witchcraft
@rrwillsj
sorry, but even the catholics admit this
The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen).
https://www.catho...a/heresy

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
@idiot chris/hannes the eu cult sock

what is the one thing in common with all your "examples"?

this one is so easy that even an illiterate idiot pretend researcher like you can get it... here it is:
all those examples also demonstrate the power of the scientific method
(they also demonstrate the limitations of communication at the time as well as the problems with not having open science shared with others)

case in point: you state
every idea today accepted was once rejected
and why are the ideas of today accepted?

it's because the *gasp* evidence won out pushing the knowledge and boundaries of science!
IOW - the scientific method pushed the boundaries of ignorance

and guess what?
it still does

more importantly, it still allows dissent and opinion, but said dissent and opinion (or anecdote) just doesn't carry the weight of repeatable validated evidence

that is why the eu is a cult
and you're an idiot acolyte
science wins over stupidity and religion again
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2017
We simply don't have enough information to guide what the next-most-accurate physical description may be that will better describe what happens at the centers of black holes

The main trick is that it doesn't just have to be better there. It has to be as good or better *everywhere else* too.

That GR just goes to infinity is nothing more (nor less) than a sign of: "it's not the final theory"
This isn't a revolutionary insight. It's probably the oldest insight in all of science that *no* theory can ever be the "ultimately true" one
(One can conversely show that if such an "ultimately true" theory existed - and we wrote it down - then we could never prove that it is actually so)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2017
most physicists suspect that the classical equations of GR probably are not accurate within some very small region around the center of a black hole


Oh, you mean like this:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." Albert Einstein 1939

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

.....this is what Einstein wrote in response to those trying to use the "classical equations of GR" to bend his Field Equations into BHs, yeah, BS to you bunch of neophytes.....he must've been thinking about you Shavo.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2017
That GR just goes to infinity is nothing more (nor less) than a sign of: "it's not the final theory"


.......and here's just one more example of a "neophyte" trying to bend Einstein's Field Equations into something Einstein never intended: "GR just goes to infinity....".

There is nothing in Einstein Field Equations that "goes to infinity"........if you know where it appears then I challenge YOU to Copy & Paste it right here for all of us to see, that way all of us can see how really smart you are compared to me. However, I can quote you a section directly from GR that contradicts your assertion, maybe you'd like to see me Copy & Paste it? C'mon Anti-Physics take up my challenge & we'll see who the neophyte is here, I'm ready to paste it.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
@Ira, absolutely correct. And unlike their crimes against Galileo they have never apologized for burning Bruno alive after nailing his tongue to the roof of his mouth so he could not scream.

Until the Catholic Church apologizes for that, not to mention Torquemada among other multiple murderers and terrorists, I will never consider forgiving them.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
Shock waves, not gravitational waves. I keep saying.

The LIGO experiment serves to prove that space is indeed something, that the "fabric of space-time" has a mutable density, and that it propagates shock waves.

What in the world has gravity got to do with shock wave detection? And if there were such a thing as gravity waves, why can't we detect the ongoing gravitational forces acting on the Earth by the sun and moon? Consider the mass of all the water in those daily tides and you'll understand that gravity has an incredible influence around us, but apparently we can only detect them when "two black holes collide" billions of years away.

They detected shock waves. Okay?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
Here's the thing: it's the same as the difference between an object with a static charge and an antenna hooked to a radio. The static charge just sits there, like a mass; the antenna makes waves, like a pair of masses circling each other.

It's really simple if you understand how gravity works. If you don't, not so much.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2017
Let's make it even simpler. If you stick your finger in the water and just hold it there, no waves. If you wiggle it, waves. Get it now? Is your finger making "shockwaves" when you wiggle it?

#physicscranks have such weird ideas.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2017
Schneibo, Density Dude:

Let's make it even simpler. If you stick your finger in the water and just hold it there, no waves. If you wiggle it, waves. Get it now? Is your finger making "shockwaves" when you wiggle it?

#physicscranks have such weird ideas.
.......as if comparing water waves to gravity isn't #physicscrankitis.

Hey, density dude, maybe you can Copy & Paste for us the section of General Relativity where Einstein predicted the existence of GRAVITY WAVES. Shavo & Anti-Physics still haven't responded with the homework questions I gave them to produce relevant sections about what they claim is found in GR, let's see if you can.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
Einstein was an important, but not final, word in physics. Einstein rather famously tried to avoid the oncoming realities of quantum mechanics. And our current state of physics is really good at predicting a lot of outcomes of experiments, but we know it's also not the final word either, and we all know it isn't.

But the physics that comes next has to build off of the physics that we already have right now and reproduce the results of our existing physical theories. And to try to circle back around to the actual topic at hand, our current physics predicted that experiments set up like this would detect signals like they detected. But maybe we'll make observations of stuff that our current physics didn't predict. Maybe there's some small discrepancy between these observations and predictions, and maybe that helps us understand more of how exactly our current approximations fail, and what the next newest closest approximation to the truth will be.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2017
But the physics that comes next has to build off of the physics that we already have right now and reproduce the results of our existing physical theories. And to try to circle back around to the actual topic at hand, our current physics predicted that experiments set up like this would detect signals like they detected. But maybe we'll make observations of stuff that our current physics didn't predict. Maybe there's some small discrepancy between these observations and predictions, and maybe that helps us understand more of how exactly our current approximations fail, and what the next newest closest approximation to the truth will be.
........what a pile of psycho-babble, a freelance journalist looking for a job.......and he comes here.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
Also, if you could be bothered to spend half a second reading those wiki links people are providing, you'll see that Einstein thought gravitational waves couldn't exist, but that others found a different coordinate system expression that got around the singularity Einstein initially observed. This had happened previously with the Schwarzschild metric where there was a mathematical singularity at the Shcwarzschild radius, but a coordinate transform got around it.

The production of gravitational waves for orbiting bodies has a mathematical parallel with orbiting electrically charged bodies. You can see Carlip's paper on the 'speed of gravity' for a relatively simple comparison. https://arxiv.org.../9909087
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
Hey, density dude, maybe you can Copy & Paste for us the section of General Relativity where Einstein predicted the existence of GRAVITY WAVES.
Sure, no problem.

First of all, gravity waves are fluid mechanics. You are obviously talking about gravitational waves, which you'd know if you knew anything about it in the first place.

Gravitational waves were not first discovered by Einstein; they were first proposed by Heaviside in 1893 well before GRT or even SRT. In 1905 Poincare discussed them based on Heaviside's analysis. Einstein predicted them in 1916 and placed them on a firm mathematical foundation in 1918 after his first paper on GRT in 1915. The papers are available here:
http://echo.mpiwg...dex.meta

Hope you can read German.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2017
if you could be bothered to spend half a second reading those wiki links people are providing, you'll see that Einstein thought gravitational waves couldn't exist, but that others found a different coordinate system expression that got around the singularity


Shavo, I already know more about the historical arguments than you could ever hope to commit to your vastly more limited memory cells. Here you are, someone who came on this site once bragging about taking an Introductory Thermodynamics in Grad School, and you imagine you can give a Science Professional, such as myself, a lecture in how science evolves. You need to evolve a cogent thought & go back to writing about whatever it was before you discovered the Comments section here at this site.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
Fxxin edit removed the 1918 paper. Here it is:
http://echo.mpiwg...dex.meta

Einstein later tried to retract it, but was shown definitively that he was wrong and eventually published a paper re-iterating gravitational waves after being convinced by one of his associates that his analysis was incorrect. https://arxiv.org...09.09400
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
I already know more about the historical arguments than you could ever hope to commit to your vastly more limited memory cells.
Looks like you've been pwnt again, @Lenni. Einstein himself attempted to refute gravitational waves in 1936 and was convinced he was wrong by his own associate and eventually published a paper agreeing they must exist.

Maybe you don't know so much about scientific history after all.

Pwnt again. What a luser.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2017
Einstein predicted them in 1916 and placed them on a firm mathematical foundation in 1918 after his first paper on GRT in 1915. The papers are available here:
http://echo.mpiwg...dex.meta


You flunked your homework assignment, I expressly stated for you to quote the section of General Relativity & you couldn't do it, no surprise there Density Dude.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
If you won't accept Einstein's own analysis of his own theory, @Lenni, published a year after, I don't know what you're looking for but it seems to be a unicorn.

Pwnt again, @Lenni.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
I mean seriously, Heaviside and Poincare? This is like arguing with Gauss, Ramanujan, or Laplace. You cannot possibly win. No one posting on this site could possibly win. These people were geniuses. You are not. PWNT AGAIN, @LENNI. Suck on it and choke.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
For lurkerz, worth repeating the link to the history of the theory of gravitational waves. Pretty interesting if you're into scientific history. Repeat of the link: https://arxiv.org...9400.pdf Definitely worth a read.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
quote the section of General Relativity

This kid literally believes that general relativity is a book with chapter titles and sections that can be cut and pasted onto web forums. Let's just pause and reflect on that level of inexperience for a moment.

Anyway, Gravitation by 'Meisner, Thorne, and Wheeler' has several chapters on gravitational waves. Please feel free to work through that text book if you're really looking for "the section of general relativity" that describes gravitational waves.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
You cannot possibly win.
You should see the Really-Skippy trying to lawyer me on the helium flash stars.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
Ha! I'm actually looking at a copy of MTW right now, @shavera. Part VIII is titled "Gravitational Waves" and contains chapters 35, "Propagation of gravitational waves," 36, "Generation of gravitational waves," and 37, "Detection of gravitational waves." It runs from pp 941 through 1044.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
Charles W. Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler are three of the most celebrated relativists who have ever lived. Misner is responsible for the foundation of most of the numerical simulations of relativity that exist. Kip Thorne has just won a Nobel Prize in Physics in the article we are commenting on. John Wheeler was one of the first physicists to talk about "black holes," and participated in the Manhattan Project. He also was one of the first to work on quantum gravity, and invented the concept of quantum foam. He invented the delayed choice concept, which eventually led to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment by Kim and Scully, one of the most definitive experiments in quantum optics of the 20th century. He taught Thorn, and also Feynman, Bekenstein, Unruh, Misner, and Hugh Everett (yes that Everett).
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2017
[contd]
Their foundational textbook, titled simply Gravitation, remains a staple in university relativity physics programs to this day. If you have not read it you are not a relativist, simple as that.

It is enormously irritating to have to deal with idiots who don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about blathering about GRT and SRT and demeaning Nobel Prize winners whose shoes' soles they are not fit to lick.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
and demeaning Nobel Prize winners whose shoes' soles they are not fit to lick.
.....but you are "fit to lick" their "shoes' soles", I see your problem.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2017
I am nowhere close to needing to lick anything, @Lenni. That's you. Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
Just so everyone has an idea of how much of an idiot @Lenni is, it's worth mentioning that Ranier Weiss, one of the winners, has been working on interferometric gravitational wave detectors since the 1970s. He credits his inspiration as Felix Pirani, who published the idea in 1956, but he came up with the idea for it independently, and only found out about Pirani's paper later.

LIGO was created from ideas that were first proposed 60 years ago, and solidified 40 years ago. That's a major portion of a lifetime, and Ranier Weiss deserves his Nobel Prize for his long work, and should enjoy it. This is a real physicist, not an idiot who posts meaningless drivel on the Internets.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
What? Tell me then you don't believe in this:

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

I believe in MAXIMUM density. Meaning - a physical point where it can't get get any denser...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2017
The production of gravitational waves for orbiting bodies has a mathematical parallel with orbiting electrically charged bodies. You can see Carlip's paper on the 'speed of gravity' for a relatively simple comparison. https://arxiv.org.../9909087

Psssst, Shav... Don't say electrically charged or CR and CD85 will use it as "proof" of EU...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
I keep telling people, @Whyde, that I think everything inside an event horizon is not describable with current gravity physics. I now have four pieces of evidence to support me:

1. Nobody can actually prove anything "falls into" a black hole. To do so requires infinite time, since gravitational time dilation goes to infinity at the event horizon. In my view of black holes, everything "in" the black hole collects just outside the event horizon, falling inward more and more slowly, but never actually going "in." I don't think there's anything "in" a black hole.
2. Hawking radiation proves that mass that is, in my view, just outside the event horizon, can be converted to energy. If it couldn't, then Hawking radiation would be impossible.
3. Every time someone tries to explain what's "inside" a black hole, they wind up calculating infinities. When we calculate infinities it tells us there's something deeply wrong with our theory.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2017
[contd]
4. When black holes coalesce, some of the mass just outside the event horizon gets converted into energy and is emitted as energy, i.e. gravitational waves. This also argues, like Hawking radiation, that black hole physics can convert mass to energy.

I don't think there's anything "in" black holes. I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass," and the only possibility is actual energy- either as photons or gravitons, or maybe gluons. I don't think that material objects can pass the event horizon. I'm not sure what that means for matter that happens to be inside the event horizon when it forms; I've been thinking about that a long time and don't have an answer. But black holes' abilities to convert matter to energy make me think there's no mass inside them- just energy, if anything at all.

Now let's see if a real relativist shows up and tells me I'm crazy.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
Charles W. Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler

That's quite an impressive list of preeminent pseudoscientists, the who's who of plasma ignoramuses which have never seen a plasma in a lab yet pontificate fanciful like upon matter and physics which don't exist but in a mathematical equation.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2017
LOL

They have, collectively, one more Nobel Prize in Physics than you have.

I asked before, @cantthink69, show me a Nobel Prize in Physics that turned out to be wrong. Your answer was

crickets

Are we done here?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
Nobody can actually prove anything "falls into" a black hole. To do so requires infinite time, since gravitational time dilation goes to infinity at the event horizon

Depends if you look at proper time or observer time. For the one falling in (proper time) the time until he hits the singularity (or whatever is at the center of a black hole...if the notion of 'center even applies') is finite. So is the time untill he hits the event horizon.
For an outside observer the falling in is stretched out until infinity (but only the part until the the event horizon...all the stuff that happens later in proper time is not observable outside, of course)

This is not a contradiction. The amount of photons emitted by the one falling in in proper time until he hits the event horizon is finite. It is only these photons an outside observer can register (ever more redshifted. Even if they can be registered at that high a redshift there's an ever growing lag between catching one)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2017
I don't think there's anything "in" black holes. I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"


Great, hollow BHs,

See why you're so great entertainment schneibo? Okay, Density Dude......what's the thickness of the surface where all this gravity exists that prevents electro-magnetic waves from reaching the "escape velocity" criteria of your BH pseudo-science?
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
Benni, before you say another word that proves just how little you know about the maths of GR, why don't you bother taking a course in GR, or reading the textbook we recommend above. Instead of trying to use conventional physics "escape velocities" it's better instead to see that time is so strongly rotated into space at the event horizon that all physical futures are pointing toward the center of the black hole. This is, in fact, why it is called an event horizon, because we use the word 'event' to describe a 'point' in space-time geometry. The EH is a 'horizon' beyond which future events are simply not visible to outside observers.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
DS's explanation is one that isn't entirely accepted into the mainstream but goes something like: since physics only can talk about what we can observe, and since all observerational frames that matter are outside of black holes, then the only physical description we can really come up with is one where we describe matter falling into a black hole. And since that matter appears to take an infinite amount of time to 'fall' in, it would surely collide with other matter that's falling in along the way.

The 'surface' (not a 2D surface, but some relatively thin 3D shell) becomes a particle scattering region where, over very long times, particles exchange information through collisions and Hawking radiation slowly leaks the results.

Conveniently, as even the casual physics observer may know, a spherical shell has the same gravitational description outside of the shell as does a point mass at its center, so to outside observers, there's no real difference in behaviour by this model.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
This was the first place I'd heard of this model, and it was discussed several times (though remained a controversial position, admittedly): https://www.reddi...ck_hole/
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
Benni, before you say another word that proves just how little you know about the maths of GR, why don't you bother taking a course in GR, or reading the textbook we recommend above. Instead of trying to use conventional physics "escape velocities" it's better instead to see that time is so strongly rotated into space at the event horizon that all physical futures are pointing toward the center of the black hole. This is, in fact, why it is called an event horizon, because we use the word 'event' to describe a 'point' in space-time geometry. The EH is a 'horizon' beyond which future events are simply not visible to outside observers.


Talk about psycho-babble, this is the epitome of the use of it, all coming from someone whose first science lesson was an introductory course in thermodynamics in grad school of all places. My six years of education majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering technologically dwarfs anything you studied in attaining your journalism degree.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
My six years of education majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering technologically dwarfs anything you studied in attaining your journalism degree.


And yet seemingly renders you incapable of writing your criticism within the scientific literature. You have to do it here, like a whole bunch of other cranks. With a 1000 character limit, and no ability to render equations. Why? Nobody within the scientific community is taking the slightest bit of notice of you. What do you hope to achieve? Beats me. Messrs Dunning & Kruger might understand it, though.
shavera
5 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
My six years of education majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering

Says the child who thinks quantum mechanics is a book with quotable sections.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
Why? Nobody within the scientific community is taking the slightest bit of notice of you.


Oh, dead on the money with that comment, you also one of those not "within the scientific community" but you are taking a lot "of notice" of me.

What do you hope to achieve?
............entertainment for the casual reader who never signs in, but who also likes to have a good laugh reading about infinitely dense hollow BHs.

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
@anti, you're correct, I should have specified outside observer time.

@shavera, you're also correct, I am speculating, and was careful to put it that way, but not wildly outside the mainstream. It's my strong opinion that although it was amusing to read Kip Thorne speculating about what's inside a black hole, we really probably shouldn't be doing that because without a quantum gravity theory we really don't have anything to go on. GRT doesn't tell us about anything past the event horizon reliably, and when we start talking about singularities as if they actually exist we're well outside the mainstream, IMHO.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
@shavera, @Da Schneib, @Benni.

@Benni: Please stop your personal-feud taunts of the others I address above, mate. Thanks. Only genuine engagement will ever help you and them reach a mutual (correct) understanding. To that end, I will lead now by example:

@shavera, @DS: I have time today to offer polite, relevant, scientific/logical critique of your respective 'takes' (as just posted by you). I will do so in hopes you will not kneejerk/insult from prejudices/feuds etc. Here we go...

Starting with DS's 'take', I now respond to his numbered points, respectively...

1.
The first problem, DS, is that, IF "nothing ever falls into a black hole", THEN NO SUPER/HYPER massive black hole features could exist; because they could NEITHER FORM in the usual manner from scratch NOR GROW by ingesting more energy-matter. Hence a non-sequitur due to reality-GR logics/physics already known/applied correctly UP TO EH context. Time Dilation is irrelevant to LINEAR PROPAGATION to EH.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
cont...critiquing @Da Schneib's 'points':

2.
Hawking Radiation is a conjecture, hence cannot be, as you have, taken as "PROOF" for any further conjecture; hence your citing of HR as a 'proof' for your relevant conjecture is invalid in both science method/logics. Hence a non-sequitur in any case.

3.
Your acknowledgement of the problems with applying GR maths to INSIDE of BH features is merely repeating what is already well known/understood re LIMITATIONS of GR-maths extrapolating beyond its domain of applicability, since GR is a partial theory still. Hence you make no new/significant point there.

4.
Again, citing Hawking Radiation CONJECTURE as 'proof' of your own conjectures is invalid. Also, the fact that there must be SOMETHING within the EH to generate a BH's GRAVITATIONAL effect on surrounding energy-matter content/dynamics/states etc, it is was always/already TRIVIALLY OBVIOUS that 'something' must have an EXTREMALLY DEGENERATE energy-matter form/state.

Ok, DS? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
Now critique for @shavera's 'take':
since physics only can talk about what we can observe, and since all observerational frames that matter are outside of black holes, then the only physical description we can really come up with is one where we describe matter falling into a black hole. And since that matter appears to take an infinite amount of time to 'fall' in, it would surely collide with other matter that's falling in along the way.
As I already pointed out to DS, the LINEAR PROPAGATION towards an EH is NOT subject to the Time Dilation effects which apply/affect ONLY a thing's 'INTERNAL CLOCK' CYCLIC PROCESSES. Hence trying to apply the usual 'frame of reference' relativities/interpretations to LINEAR WHOLE BODY MOTION towards EH is a non-sequitur 'perspective' because it ignores known GR and QUANTUM logics/physics reality.

Also:
...and Hawking radiation slowly leaks the results.
That does not help to define/explain the Formation/Contents/Lifetime issues.

Ok? :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2017
an obvious falsehood based upon the illogical
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
we really probably shouldn't be doing that because without a quantum gravity theory we really don't have anything to go on

Well, I'll put out an idea what happens inside the event horizon: ;
Nothing much because matter cannot be stable (unless I'm missing something).

My reasoning goes thus:
Let's consider e.g. a helium ion that enters the event horizon. The force that holds the nucleons together (strong nuclear force) is mediated by gluons. Gluons are - like everything else - limited to the speed of light.
Let us consider a situation in which the helium nucleus is oriented in such a way that one of its neutrons is futher 'in' towards the center of the BH than the other nucleons. Then there is no way how that neutron can exchange a gluon with its siblings. It no longer feels the strong nuclear force - and the nucleus falls apart.

(Same reasoning goes for the weak nuclear force and the neutrons and protons themselves should disintegrate into 'free' quarks. )
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2017
@anti, interesting speculations and somewhat in line with mine. I hadn't considered the dissociation of atoms, but it does naturally follow from my speculations as you demonstrate. We would not, then, see only energy inside the event horizon, but energy and fundamental matter particles, free leptons and quarks. (By "energy" in this context I mean free photons, gravitons, gluons, and weak bosons.) This would rather neatly account for any matter trapped within the event horizon when it forms, and for Hawking radiation.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2017
@Benni,

Oh, dead on the money with that comment, you also one of those not "within the scientific community" ***but you are taking a lot "of notice" of me.***


Nope. Well, partially right. You, yes. Due to your fascinating D-K tendencies. What you talk about? Nah. Too many cranks here to read all their nonsense. Whatever you're on about would already be in the scientific literature if it had any merit. If it is, just give us a link to it, instead of your endless, pointless posts.

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2017
but energy and fundamental matter particles, free leptons and quarks

Always assuming that leptons/quarks are fundamental and not composed themselves of something (in which case they'd fall apart also).

If everything is made of the same "stuff' at a fundamental level (whatever that 'stuff' may be. Let#s call it 'raw energy' or maybe even 'raw information') - then everything inside a black hole may well degenerate into that and nothing else.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
Too many cranks here to read all their nonsense. Whatever you're on about would already be in the scientific literature if it had any merit.
............and according to you Einstein must be quite the "crank":

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light

The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
Too many cranks here to read all their nonsense.


Right jonesy, such as:

I don't think there's anything "in" black holes. I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"
.......hollow BHs.

Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2017
Too many cranks here to read all their nonsense.


Right jonesy, such as:


I don't think there's anything "in" black holes. I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"


.......hollow BHs.


..........it just dawned on me, density dude Schneibo may have a salient point here about the concept of BHs being hollow inside. I just finished digging a hole in one of the gardens, and when my wife asked me what I was going to put in the "empty hole", and like a flash it suddenly made sense as to why schneibo realized why BHs use the the term "hole", there's nothing in them, they're hollow.

Hey Density Dude schneibo, are your BHs infinitely hollow or how exactly does this work?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2017
Hey Density Dude schneibo, are your BHs infinitely hollow or how exactly does this work?


Tell you what - instead of questioning people on here, why don't you ask some of the many scientists who have written papers on BHs? I'll tell you why not; 1) you come on here suffering from DK syndrome; 2) you merely want to satisfy that syndrome by posing questions to (presumably) unpublished people not involved in the relevant research; 3) you are unqualified and unpublished in the relevant science 4) you haven't got the ability or knowledge to actually question this within the scientific literature.

The only reason that people such as you come on here is to satisfy their needs arising from extreme D-K syndrome. Alternatively, they have been conned by some psuedoscientist or other, and want to promote their gibberish.
Which camp are you in?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2017
............and according to you Einstein must be quite the "crank":


Although Einstein's reasoning is correct, his point is irrelevant: it does not matter that a collapsing star at the Schwarzschild radius is unstable, because the star collapses past that radius anyway. I was much taken by the fact that the then 60-year-old Einstein presents in this paper tables of numerical results, which he must have gotten by using a slide rule. ***But the paper, like the slide rule, is now a historical artifact.***


And is treated as such by the people who are working on BH theory, and gravitational wave detection. Why don't you email Kip Thorne and ask him for his take on the paper? It'd save us all the trouble of having to read your constant ramblings on here.

https://www.its.c...ex.html/ will give you his email address. Let us know what he says.

https://www.scien...2007-04/

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
Alternatively, they have been conned by some psuedoscientist or other, and want to promote their gibberish.
......righto, Einstein is the guy you just labeled as a the "psuedoscientist" that I quote.......or maybe you've never heard of him?

Which camp are you in?
.........Einstein's, I just keep quoting him post after post and you density dudes just won't agree with him & his denunciations for the existence of GRAVITY WAVES & BLACK HOLES that the real pseudo-scientists claim can be secretly uncovered in his General Relativity.

According to you guess Einstein also suffered from extreme D-K syndrome, because he disagreed with zany Schwarzschild's black hole math. It appears to follow that you imagine you don't suffer from extreme D-K syndrome simply because you agree with "psuedoscientist" Einstein's detractors. You Density Dudes are a hoot for the best value in entertainment that can be found here.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
^^^^^^Write it up D-K boy, or ST hell up. You're boring, as well as unqualified. Nobody working in the field agrees with the conclusions of that Einstein paper. Go argue with them. Repeating this endlessly on here accomplishes nothing, other than highlighting your D-K inspired obsession.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2017
Nobel my a$$ sets science back over 100 years. Mass is not an object, it is a bundle of bipolar objects, charge. Charge exists from its center to infinity, i.e. charge is the field. measured wavelength over measured period is the constant c, emitted wavelength over measured period is speed! The static field is gravity, the sinusoidal is light, and the non sinusoidal is an event. GR= nonsense! QED!
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
Repeating this endlessly on here accomplishes nothing,


.....but you're wrong that it "accomplishes nothing". What it "accomplishes" is that it gets advocates for perpetual motion all bent out of shape, like you are right now, I call it ENTERTAINMENT.

Love you perpetual motion mechanics who live here, we need your entertainment so we can have a light hearted day from time to time, eg, Schneibo's hollow black hole. Until my wife pointed out to me in the garden this morning, it never occurred to me that "holes are empty", it was at that moment it struck me what a brilliant concept of BHs the density dude had come up with:
I don't think there's anything "in" black holes.I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"
,,,,,,and as I was staring at that hole I made in the ground, WOW, how brilliant can old man density dude get, of course "holes" are empty & hollow.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2017
@shavera.

I note you downvoted my science and logics based critiques of the points in your and DS's 'takes'. No problem. :)

However, it's not a good look, science discussion wise, to just downvote without actually saying exactly what and why you have downvoted; as mindless trolling/botvoting is something usually associated with ego-tripping ignoramuses rather than the objective, polite, scientific discoursers which I took you to *aspire* to be.

So, please state which scientific/logical point/critique you disagree with and let the science/logics understandings flourish instead of being buried by the usual ego and malice brought by the usual suspects, hey? :)

PS: I also note that @RNP, by his own actions in my feedback page, has made the deliberate (or mindless, as the case may be) decision to effectively self-identify himself as yet another of the mindless botvoting ignoramuses on the forums; he also has downvoted those posts without any counter argument in support. Pity.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2017
Repeating this endlessly on here accomplishes nothing,


.....but you're wrong that it "accomplishes nothing". What it "accomplishes" is that it gets advocates for perpetual motion all bent out of shape, like you are right now, I call it ENTERTAINMENT.

Love you perpetual motion mechanics who live here, we need your entertainment so we can have a light hearted day from time to time, eg, Schneibo's hollow black hole. Until my wife pointed out to me in the garden this morning, it never occurred to me that "holes are empty", it was at that moment it struck me what a brilliant concept of BHs the density dude had come up with:
I don't think there's anything "in" black holes.I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"
,,,,,,and as I was staring at that hole I made in the ground, WOW, how brilliant can old man density dude get, of course "holes" are empty & hollow.



No offence, but you are a dickhead.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
^^^^ Let me add that this was this eejit who thought that visible light didn't warm things!!!!! Cretin.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2017
Can I also add that @Lenni is a serious tosspot. Imagine coming on here, and thinking that you are actually influencing ***real*** science!!!!" Jeez, what a tosspot. Eh? Eejit.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2017
@RC,

I note you downvoted my science and logics based critiques of the points in your and DS's 'takes'. No problem. :)


RC: Do us a favour, yes? Either write this up, or STFU. Yes? Otherwise you are just another crank, who wants to say Einstein was wrong/ right etc.,without the bleeding ability to back it up where it counts. That is, in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. Yes? If you have done it in such an arena, let's see a bleeding link. Otherwise.........as I said. Goodbye.

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2017
I'm really unsure why this is considered science.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2017
and thinking that you are actually influencing ***real*** science!!!!"


......and jonesy babe, I keep telling you time & again that I don't come here for "real science". Can you try reading it again: ENTERTAINMENT.......ENTERTAINMENT.....ENTERTAINMENT.........ENTERTAINMENT.

There is almost no "real science" here, not even these 3 clowns trying for the holiest grail of the 21st century, CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY. They don't know why they won't attain their COG, but Einstein did & I comprehend the real science of the non-existence of gravity waves, science about which clowns like you consider Einstein a "crank" because he wouldn't swallow Schwarzschild's Perpetual Motion Math Machine.

Oh, by the way, thanks jonesy for more ENTERTAINMENT, Capiche? Probably not.

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2017
and thinking that you are actually influencing ***real*** science!!!!"


......and jonesy babe, I keep telling you time & again that I don't come here for "real science". Can you try reading it again: ENTERTAINMENT.......ENTERTAINMENT.....ENTERTAINMENT.........ENTERTAINMENT.

There is almost no "real science" here, not even these 3 clowns trying for the holiest grail of the 21st century, CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY. They don't know why they won't attain their COG, but Einstein did & I comprehend the real science of the non-existence of gravity waves, science about which clowns like you consider Einstein a "crank" because he wouldn't swallow Schwarzschild's Perpetual Motion Math Machine.

Oh, by the way, thanks jonesy for more ENTERTAINMENT, Capiche? Probably not.


Science of nonsense
RNP
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2017
@RealityCheck
PS: I also note that @RNP, by his own actions in my feedback page, has made the deliberate (or mindless, as the case may be) decision to effectively self-identify himself as yet another of the mindless botvoting ignoramuses on the forums; he also has downvoted those posts without any counter argument in support. Pity.


The fact that you think that you have made an argument that needs responding to simply shows how deluded you are. I stopped trying to argue with trolls like you months ago. So take your supercillious claptrap and stick it back where it came from (remember to wash your hands afterwards).
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
So take your supercillious claptrap and stick it back where it came from (remember to wash your hands afterwards).


Yeah, so there.....and here is where it should go:
I don't think there's anything "in" black holes.I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,"
......then density dude Schneibo can then have something inside his thin shell of an empty hole to keep it from collapsing in on itself. Hey Schneibo? What do you think? Sound like a good idea to you? I'm just trying to help you out so you don't look like too much of a crank carrying that fatal crankitis disease around.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
Either write this up, or STFU. Yes? Otherwise you are just another crank, who wants to say Einstein was wrong/ right etc.,without the bleeding ability to back it up where it counts. That is, in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.


.....and so Einstein does exactly that:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality........"

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable

URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

.........hereby trashing the entire concept of BHs, making him one of those you accuse of being a "crank". Explain to us why YOU are not the crank here? After all, it is YOU who disagrees with Einstein.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2017
To help the Nobel Laureates, The charge's static field yields gravity, the sinusoidal light, the nonsinusoidal, are events. You're all wrong and have Truth for over 100 years. The last 100 years in theory is nonsense!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2017
I think what I find most amusing is that a bunch of #physicscranks think they're smarter than the Nobel Prize Committee. It's the incredible arrogance combined with incredible ignorance that is the most risible.

I think the most effective means of rendering the #physicscranks impotent is to laugh at them.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
I think the most effective means of rendering the #physicscranks impotent is to laugh at them.
.....you mean like this:
I don't think there's anything "in" black holes.I can't see how it could ever get there. No singularity, nothing anyone might call "mass,";
........yeah density dude, it was a good laugh.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2017
@jonesdave.
RC: Do us a favour, yes? Either write this up, or STFU. Yes? Otherwise you are just another crank, who wants to say Einstein was wrong/ right etc.,without the bleeding ability to back it up where it counts. That is, in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. Yes?
What's your problem, mate? You are contributing to personal/ego-tripping 'feuds' and letting your emotional/kneejerking reaction get in the way of objective discourse on some very crucial points raised (by me). Please try not to let your anger/feud with the 'EU crowd', Benni etc affect your exchanges/readings with/of me, ok?

In history of science, the COFFE SHOP and SMOKING CLUB etc was where AMATEUR, GENTLEMAN, PROFESSIONAL, LAYPERSON and SCIENTISTS openly DISCUSSED science matter.

INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUMS are modern counterparts; why try to delimit/censor/ignore open science discourse now?

For myself, I already told you before: I WILL publish, but only complete, not 'piecemeal'. My choice. Ok? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2017
In history of science, the COFFE SHOP and SMOKING CLUB etc was where AMATEUR, GENTLEMAN, PROFESSIONAL, LAYPERSON and SCIENTISTS openly DISCUSSED science matter.


Did they have to interrupt their DISCUSSING all day everyday because of the hayseeds who wandered in that refused to believe the world was not flat, and thought the moon was made of cheese and thought witches fly on brooms?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
@RNP.
The fact that you think that you have made an argument that needs responding to simply shows how deluded you are. I stopped trying to argue with trolls like you months ago. So take your supercillious claptrap and stick it back where it came from (remember to wash your hands afterwards).
Are you for real, mate?!

RNP, please drop personal attitudes/prejudices etc; then objectively read/note the points I made in my above critiques:-

1) Hawking Radiation is still purely speculation; hence cannot be cited or relied upon as 'proof' for @DS's or @shavera's above conjectures.

2) Time Dilation 'in falling object' does NOT apply to/have effect on, its LINEAR PROPAGATION towards EH of BH; only applies/affects its INTERNAL CYCLIC 'clock processes motions' of said 'in falling object'; hence cannot be cited as explanation/cause in @DS's relevant conjecture about "nothing falls into a black hole" etc.

See, RNP? You 'missed' the points I made; so downvoted me unfairly. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
2) Time Dilation 'in falling object' does NOT apply to/have effect on, its LINEAR PROPAGATION towards EH of BH; only applies/affects its INTERNAL CYCLIC 'clock processes motions' of said 'in falling object'; hence cannot be cited as explanation/cause in @DS's relevant conjecture about "nothing falls into a black hole" etc.


Maybe you should read up on the experiments they had done in the laboratories that prove you are wrong. Ask Google-Skippy to show you some stuffs about the Muon Time Dilation experiments (or at least try to stay out of the SMOKING CLUB.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
In history of science, the COFFE SHOP and SMOKING CLUB etc was where AMATEUR, GENTLEMAN, PROFESSIONAL, LAYPERSON and SCIENTISTS openly DISCUSSED science matter.


Did they have to interrupt their DISCUSSING all day everyday because of the hayseeds who wandered in that refused to believe the world was not flat, and thought the moon was made of cheese and thought witches fly on brooms?
They might have had to put up with many a nincompoop who could scrape together enough 'coin of the realm' to afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pipeful of Tobacco; the modern INTERNET Forum counterpart of like nincompoop being any bot-voting ignoramus who can afford the cost of computer and internet connection, hey Ira? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
2) Time Dilation 'in falling object' does NOT apply to/have effect on, its LINEAR PROPAGATION towards EH of BH; only applies/affects its INTERNAL CYCLIC 'clock processes motions' of said 'in falling object'; hence cannot be cited as explanation/cause in @DS's relevant conjecture about "nothing falls into a black hole" etc.


Maybe you should read up on the experiments they had done in the laboratories that prove you are wrong. Ask Google-Skippy to show you some stuffs about the Muon Time Dilation experiments (or at least try to stay out of the SMOKING CLUB.)
Maybe you should read my words again, Ira. If it's too subtle/complex for you, I will point out the difference:

The Muon time dilation related to its INTERNAL CLOCK cyclic processes counting down its 'lifetime' until decaying. Its LINEAR PROPAGATION is still there in the 'decay products' continuing their component linear propagation.

Think about it, Ira. :)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2017
Think about it, Ira. :)
.........were you serious when you wrote this last line? I don't see the tongue in your cheek. :-), mine is.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
The Muon time dilation related to its INTERNAL CLOCK cyclic processes counting down its 'lifetime' until decaying.


I hope you are just lawyering again and not so stupid that did not realize the whole thing is the experiment with TWO clocks.

The muon's INTERNAL CLOCK and the experimenter's EXTERNAL CLOCK.

How you like me now Skippy?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
The Muon time dilation related to its INTERNAL CLOCK cyclic processes counting down its 'lifetime' until decaying.


I hope you are just lawyering again and not so stupid that did not realize the whole thing is the experiment with TWO clocks.

The muon's INTERNAL CLOCK and the experimenter's EXTERNAL CLOCK.

How you like me now Skippy?
We're talking about PROPER MOTION (linear propagation towards Event Horizon) of an energy/matter 'object'. The only applicable 'clock' is hence the PROPER CLOCK of the, eg, Muon, as it propagates linearly towards the EH. Any external/remote 'clock' or 'frame of reference' you choose to 'observe' the Muon's linear prpagation has no effect on that Muon's internal process 'dilation effects' OR on its linear motion towards EH.

Hence why your (and DS's) confusion and invalid/unphysical conjectures, Ira. You have to be careful NOT to 'reify' or rely overly on arbitrary/abstract constucts/interpretations/frames etc. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
@Benni.
Think about it, Ira. :)
.........were you serious when you wrote this last line? I don't see the tongue in your cheek. :-), mine is.
Now that's uncalled for, mate. It's obvious that Uncle Ira CAN 'think'; it's just that most times he apparently prefers to 'joke' instead of 'think', that's all. He is obviously trying to 'think' on the point(s) I made in my above scientific/logical critiques, which is why I am trying to help him along now. At least HE is trying; which is more than can be said so far about certain others involved. So please be generous and give Ira a fair go, eh Benni? Thanks. :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2017
So please be generous and give Ira a fair go, eh Benni? Thanks. :)
:-)..........damn, can't get that tongue out of my cheek, it's stuck.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2017
We're talking about PROPER MOTION (linear propagation towards Event Horizon)
Technobabble detected. We're talking about time, not motion. And proper motion doesn't mean motion toward an event horizon in any case.

As for gravitational time dilation, that's an obvious fact accounted for in GPS.
savvys84
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2017
They have been awarding the Nobel for discoveries in pseudoscience for decades, why stop now. This must be the cherry on pseudoscientific pie.

you are absolutely correct. the swedish academy of sciences are all a bunch of wankers
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2017
We're talking about PROPER MOTION (linear propagation towards Event Horizon)
Technobabble detected. We're talking about time, not motion. And proper motion doesn't mean motion toward an event horizon in any case.

As for gravitational time dilation, that's an obvious fact accounted for in GPS.


Clocks on satellites are programmed to show one day for each day plus 45 microseconds due to time dilation effects of GR,

I finished what you couldn't Schneibo, psycho-babble.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2017
Sure, time travel and such vs Not!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
We're talking about PROPER MOTION (linear propagation towards Event Horizon)
Technobabble detected. We're talking about time, not motion. And proper motion doesn't mean motion toward an event horizon in any case.
Please stop kneejerking and assuming and misrepresenting, mate. Just stop and think it through for yourself IN CONTEXT of YOUR OWN SPECULATION scenario: nothing "falling into black hole".

Stay on context, DS; and don't confuse the point:

Linear propagation of a whole 'object' proceeds as its 'proper motion', not its 'proper time' applying to its INTERNAL processes/motions of constituent parts.

CONSIDER:

FROZEN chicken AND LIVE (WARM) chicken BOTH 'fall' at same rate, along same EXTERNAL space TRAJECTORY (proper whole-body linear motion) into a Black Hole; DESPITE 'internal process' clock-time 'rates' being DIFFERENT; ie, FROZEN = internal 'clock-time dilated'; WARM = internal 'clock-time normal').

Understand the point in context now, DS?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2017
Context, GR never won a Nobel, except for idiots describing noise as background radiation from the Big Bang while observing most of what is visible is plasma. Simply nonsense speak, Not Logic. Relative to you, can you figure out how fast a wavelet travels paste you. Better yet, are we denying the logic that Charge Exists? Or that its field is from is center to infinity? Please note, without the presence of multiple charge centers, there is no change in frequency. Juz say'n the fields don't affect the field. Lost thinking about clocks.
savvys84
not rated yet Oct 10, 2017
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses.

Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

You have no reason to feel jealous, as I bet you have not invented anything more than a fart in your entire life.
And BTW has it not ever occurred to you that the nobel prize committee, over the years have been consistently vindicating all manner of comedians, kooks and cranks.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
Juz 'cause the Nobel committee Grants a Nobel does not validate the science. It's the same as saying it's true 'cause I said it was. LOL! I'm still waiting for the obvious axiom! Oh, forgot, the "speed" of light is a constant for all viewers. Yet we see a Red Shift. Also, if mass is a variable momentum would be a function of displacement. All the above is unreconciled; it's ignored. So you may accept this $hit, I don't!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 10, 2017
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses.

Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

You have no reason to feel jealous, as I bet you have not invented anything more than a fart in your entire life.
And BTW has it not ever occurred to you that the nobel prize committee, over the years have been consistently vindicating all manner of comedians, kooks and cranks.

So first review the message before dis'ing it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
LOL, @RC now thinks frozen chickens have different time than live ones. The theory of frozen chicken relativity.

These #physicscranks, they come up with the craziest ideas. You can't make this stuff up.

Tolja it was #physicscrank #technobabble.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 11, 2017
We have become the Planet of Idiots Plenty of material for asinine movies about the stupidity of man. The only book I read as a kid, that I admire, was about Albert Schweitzer, not Albert Einstein. The only thing I like about Einstein was his Peace on Earth. Sounded a lot like Pope John Paul.

I learned in my logics class that a theory begins with an undeniable Truth! This? WTF?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
LOL, @RC now thinks frozen chickens have different time than live ones. The theory of frozen chicken relativity.
He dovetails good with Zephyr-Skippy's electron ducks bobbing along on the dense vacuum while the water walking spiders hop out of their way.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Does the FROZEN chicken (COLD) taste BETTER/WORSE/SAME than the FRESH chicken (WARM) when it's been through a black hole?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 11, 2017
LOL, @RC now thinks frozen chickens have different time than live ones. The theory of frozen chicken relativity.
He dovetails good with Zephyr-Skippy's electron ducks bobbing along on the dense vacuum while the water walking spiders hop out of their way.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Does the FROZEN chicken (COLD) taste BETTER/WORSE/SAME than the FRESH chicken (WARM) when it's been through a black hole?

You will b part of the investigation, attempting to hide real science!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/is-space-time-fluid-auid-897

Nonsense
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
You know... in thinking 'bout it...
I always thought that the Nobel was awarded for the EFFORT put into identifying particularly fascinating
(re - "here-to-fore-unknown) aspects of a given scientific subject.
For providing new ground for advancing new science investigations ...
NOT necessarily for resolving a particular issue (even though that may have been a side benefit)....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/is-space-time-fluid-auid-897

Space is the "fluid".
Time is the current it flows in...
savvys84
not rated yet Oct 11, 2017
It's pretty disgusting to see bloviating #physicscranks show up to dishonor Nobel Prize winners. Shameful, in fact. I diagnose it as jealousy of those who have no mathematical talent against mathematical geniuses.

Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

You have no reason to feel jealous, as I bet you have not invented anything more than a fart in your entire life.
And BTW has it not ever occurred to you that the nobel prize committee, over the years have been consistently vindicating all manner of comedians, kooks and cranks.

So first review the message before dis'ing it.

so what crap are you on about mate?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib, @Uncle Ira.

@DS:
LOL, @RC now thinks frozen chickens have different time than live ones.
and...
@Ira.
Ira drivel.
You two have never heard of the science/principles underpinning CRYOGENIC SUSPENDED ANIMATION science/effect?

Ie, SLOWING of INTERNAL cyclic/decay processes such that the body's INTERNAL CLOCK is maximally slowed such that frozen one does not 'age' at same rate as warm one does.

It's EINSTENIAN relativity TIME DILATION in effect, via temperature variation 'in situ' (INTERNALLY); it's another way to demonstrate TWIN EFFECT, only with INTERNAL MOTIONS differences affecting INTERNAL CLOCK/ AGING rates.

You two should consult the less ignorant/malicious members of your 'ignorant bot-voting troll gang'. They will hopefully (using baby talk) explain the scientific point being made here that is EITHER ignored by you because you really are THAT malignant; or not understood because you really are THAT stupid.

Either way, not good! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
I won't count this as one of @100LiarRC's lies; this is simple ignorance combined with @100LiarRC's usual arrogance and typical attempts at subtle insults.

Cryogenic suspension (which has never actually resulted in a successful revival and may be nothing but science fiction) has absolutely nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, either velocity or gravitational dilation. If cryogenic suspension is even possible, it does not result in time dilation; it would merely suspend the chemical processes that underpin biology.

#physicscranks come up with the craziest claims. The amusement never ends.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I won't count this as one of @100LiarRC's lies; this is simple ignorance combined with @100LiarRC's usual arrogance and typical attempts at subtle insults.
Projection-in-Denial and just plain childish "it wasn't me!" claims to innocence of your now-painfully-obvious-to-all ignorance, evasions and malice 'tactics', DS.
Cryogenic suspension (which has never actually resulted in a successful revival and may be nothing but science fiction) has absolutely nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, either velocity or gravitational dilation. If cryogenic suspension is even possible, it does not result in time dilation; it would merely suspend the chemical processes that underpin biology.
That consideration is IRRELEVANT, mate. You KNOW it is. It's NOT about 'success' re REVIVAL; it's about the aging/decay process INTERNAL MOLECULES MOTIONS etc 'time dilated' RATES PER SE; just as in SR differing MOTIONS/speeds scenarios across space affect likewise. Ok?
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Oct 16, 2017
New Gravitational Wave Discovery (Press Conference and Online Q&A Session) LIVE in the next 30 minutes https://www.youtu...PKYl4AHs
savvys84
not rated yet Oct 17, 2017
Everyone talks about how GR is right and gravitational waves are predicted thru GR. Nothing can be more wrong.
A Pendulum slows down at equator compared to at the poles, which is opposite to GR. So much for GR, even a humble pendulum conclusively refutes GR.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 17, 2017
Einstein was mistaken. The propagation constant, c, is always a constant, it's not a variable or a vector, it's the ratio of the measured wavelength over the measured period.

The "emitted" wavelength does not alter unless it travels to a very specific set of charge enters, i.e. media; therefore, the speed is the emitted wavelength over the measured period. GR is simply unscientific, illogical, and without merit. Go back to school and tear down those teaching GR!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.